SAN FRANCISCO, SEPTEMBER 15, 2011-UCREGENTS16-Members of the University of California Board of Regents George Keiffer, left and Richard C. Blum, right, have a private discussion during arguments for and against the raising of student tuition at the Regents meeting at the UC Mission Bay campus.
Ran on: 09-16-2011
UC Regents George Kieffer (left) and Dick Blum take part in a private discussion during the regents' meeting at the UC Mission Bay campus.
Ran on: 09-16-2011
UC Regents George Kieffer (left) and Dick Blum take part in a private discussion during the regents' meeting at the UC Mission Bay campus.

Photo: David Butow, Special To The Chronicle

SAN FRANCISCO, SEPTEMBER 15, 2011-UCREGENTS16-Members of the...

Image 2 of 5

SAN FRANCISCO, SEPTEMBER 15, 2011-UCREGENTS16-Members of the University of California Board of Regents leave the builiding after hearing arguments for and against the raising of student tuition at their meeting at the UC Mission Bay campus.

Photo: Special To The Chronicle

SAN FRANCISCO, SEPTEMBER 15, 2011-UCREGENTS16-Members of the...

Image 3 of 5

SAN FRANCISCO, SEPTEMBER 15, 2011-UCREGENTS16-Members of the University of California Board of Regents listen to arguments for and against the raising of student tuition at their meeting at the UC Mission Bay campus.

Photo: David Butow, Special To The Chronicle

SAN FRANCISCO, SEPTEMBER 15, 2011-UCREGENTS16-Members of the...

Image 4 of 5

SAN FRANCISCO, SEPTEMBER 15, 2011-UCREGENTS16-Members of the University of California Board of Regents listen to arguments for and against the raising of student tuition at their meeting at the UC Mission Bay campus.

Photo: David Butow, Special To The Chronicle

SAN FRANCISCO, SEPTEMBER 15, 2011-UCREGENTS16-Members of the...

Image 5 of 5

SAN FRANCISCO, SEPTEMBER 15, 2011-UCREGENTS16-Members of the University of California Board of Regents listen to arguments for and against the raising of student tuition at their meeting at the UC Mission Bay campus.

San Francisco -- The University of California regents dodged a controversy Thursday by ignoring a proposal from UC President Mark Yudof that would have mandated annual tuition increases of 8 to 16 percent for the next four years.

Instead, the regents turned their meeting at UCSF's Mission Bay campus into a therapy session of sorts, gnashing their teeth about the steep drop in state funding - nearly $1 billion in the last two years - and debating whether they could get California corporations to kick in millions of dollars to UC.

The regents also approved raises and incentive plans for 18 executives, with funding for all but one coming from private sources, such as hospital revenue.

Yudof and his finance team had hoped the regents would discuss their multiyear budget and tuition proposal, then vote in November.

But even though the regents liked the idea of imposing some stability on their wildly fluctuating budget, they stayed away from the hot-button issue of yearly tuition increases.

"It scares the bejesus out of folks," was how Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, a regent, summed it up.

Big gap to close

The four-year budget plan was intended to tackle a looming gap of $1.5 billion over the next four years, about a third of which UC says is needed for higher pay, and a quarter for retiree health and pension benefits. This year's tuition increase and cutbacks have resolved an additional $1 billion shortfall, officials said.

The idea was that a steady flow of tuition hikes would help pay these costs. Tuition would rise more in years when the state gave less, and vice versa. In the worst-case scenario - if the state provided no increase - basic tuition would rise by 16 percent a year, reaching $22,200 by fall 2015, not including mandatory campus fees, room and board. That's 81 percent higher than the current $12,192.

"There are other things we could do," Yudof said. "Freeze the size of the faculty, lengthen the time to graduation or have more nonresident students. These are not healthy for UC."

Yet the regents did not bite. Negotiating with Sacramento is "a waste of our time," said Regent Dick Blum.

Instead, the regents should approach people "who actually can write a check," he said. "Chevron, Apple, Cisco and Google - all these companies sitting on money they don't know what to do with."

Regent David Crane picked up on the theme, urging colleagues to "start acting like you're a private university. Get real - and don't fool yourselves and think the Legislature will turn around, or you'll be waiting for Godot," he said, referring to the Samuel Beckett play in which the protagonists wait in vain.

Some regents said corporate money could be used for scholarships. Others said an ad campaign for UC would be better.

Chairwoman Sherry Lansing suggested they form subcommittees to tackle each approach. The bottom line, she said, is, "I don't want to bring this (proposal) forward in November."

Later, UC Executive Vice President Nathan Brostrom, who helped craft the plan, said the idea was not quite dead.

History of increases

"We have a bit of work to do before the regents will be comfortable with that," he said.

The regents, who have been approving tuition hikes for years, sometimes twice in the same year, actually appear quite comfortable with multiyear fee increases. Since 2006, when tuition was $6,141, the regents have raised it each year by 8, 7, 26, 15 and 18 percent.

Meanwhile, the regents gave raises and incentive pay to some of UC's highest-paid executives, including Chief Investment Officer Marie Berggren, who got a $744,950 award for boosting UC's assets by $661 million beyond what was expected.

Senior Vice President John Stobo, in charge of UC's health system, received a $130,500 award for, among other things, reducing blood infections.

When Stobo's raise was announced and he was praised for his achievements, a health care worker - a member of a union that has been without a contract for months - jumped up from the audience and yelled, "It's sad that you give yourself all these raises. The decrease in infections is because of our work, but you guys get credit for it. Shame on you!"